Educational Resource Column Group Day: Experiential Learning About Group Psychotherapy for Psychiatry Residents at University of Toronto
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Experiential learning of group therapy training has historically been widely accepted; however, there are few contemporary reports in the literature regarding experiential training groups for mental health professionals (1–6). There are no recent data evaluating such training groups for psychiatry residents. In the absence of such data, residency program directors may view training groups as negative experiences of little value and may believe that residents are disinterested in or opposed to such groups (4). The current article addresses this gap in the literature by examining residents ’ experiences of, and considering the potential relevance of, the University of Toronto Department of Psychiatry’s annual experiential “Group Day, ” based on 3 years of evaluations completed by participants (N5149). Method Group Day is an annual, full-day educational event, and participation at least once during 5 years of residency training is mandatory; further participation is optional. Group leaders are invited by the Head of the Group Psychotherapy Program; they are faculty members, experienced in conducting groups, and are supervisors of group psychotherapy training for residents. They may be remunerated by their respective hospitals. Leaders prepare by meeting in advance, at the lunch break during Group Day for peer supervision, and after the day, to debrief. Five to seven groups of approximately 8 to 10 residents each are assembled to ensure a heterogeneous mix of participants regarding year of training, gender, and previous experience, and to separate residents who currently work together. Group leaders are assigned with a view to avoiding any supervisory dyads within the group or other close
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.408 | 0.048 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".